And again, since we have never even reached another solar system, and don't know the physics of deep space, how can planetary physics of OUR solar system be applied to the universe? We don't know what the effects of other systems gravity or other phenomena are or light or magnetic radiation.

All just a guess or philosophy.

 

We generally assume that the physics of places we cannot see is the same as the physics as the places we have observed. This sort of principal is used in all science. We expect that the biology of new babies is consistent with that of humans we have already seen. Perhaps you expect to live forever since no one has ever seen you die.

We are not always right. What approach would you suggest?

 

And again, since we have never even reached another solar system, and don't know the physics of deep space, how can planetary physics of OUR solar system be applied to the universe? We don't know what the effects of other systems gravity or other phenomena are or light or magnetic radiation.

mmm ...

Sounds to me your suggesting that all that EM data that has been collected and studied is of no use and is not telling us anything. And only direct spacecraft collected (?:by touch?) data is of any real value. ... ?

How about those two personal, although somewhat limited in range, EM detectors we are equipped with? Do there count as useful observers?

+ "What approach would you suggest?"
Preferably one that has some inbuilt boundaries that prevent human imagination to fly off to ... infinity.

 

I thought science is about questioning things? Religion is about accepting things on faith.

Why of all the people that have posted questions ,doubting the validity of the 'accepted theory' do you guys chose to attack me for voicing my opinion/theory? like it or not, I am just as much a "scientist" as you 'bangers'. I just choose not to worship at the same altar.

I'm not saying that the data is wrong really its just that it could be apples and oranges. When we don't know ALL the data.

As far as babies and dying we CAN observe that and Know that it is real. Because it happens here and now. What about Einsteins experiment with light shift during the eclipse? That proved that gravity of a body moved light. Did you stop to think that maybe, what is seen as 'red shift' is an artifact of all the things that light from far space is going past?

I guess what I'm saying is , it doesn't seem very 'scientific' to say that the expanding universe is written in stone. At least not yet.

 

We go by observations. What is not scientific is to reject that which is observed because you question the observations. That tends to be an attribute of religion, reject that which does not meet your personal views, and rely on faith.

What is correct science is to try to come up with theories that fit the observed evidence. If new evidence comes out then you incorporate it. There is no evidence to suggest that natural law varies according to location, though I have read some speculation elsewhere on the subject.

The fact is in our rather limited range natural law does not vary. Why would you add an assumption that it does? This is unscientific, not the other way around. You have to make basic assumptions somewhere, but make sure the assumptions fit the observed facts, and the fact is that we haven't seen any variations in natural constants within our solar system, which we have explored with probes to every planet.

It is worth mentioning that we are starting to observe other solar systems. The view is murky, but the observations are there.

There have been cases where observations did not match theory. New theories were developed to explain the discrepancies. Using Newton's theories there was a 2% variation in the orbit of Mercury around the Sun. This was a red flag. Einstein's later theory of gravitation and warped space explained the discrepancy exactly. The new theory was adopted because it explained real observations.

So where is your red flag? Faith that we don't have all the answers, and so can assume as we choose, has no traction. The fact the universe is consistent in its laws is the observed evidence. If you have observations contrary then you start questioning theory that up to then, has worked and explains what you have seen to date.

This is the scientific method, not merely questioning everything. Philosophy is about questions, science is about observations. I dislike philosophy intensely, too many people want to equate it with science. I have seen it misused too many times on these forums alone. It has a purpose, but it can not be considered science.

 

all of the theories were based on certain assumptions. It remains to be seen which assumptions will ultimately hold true as we continue to gather more data. That is all that can be said. If a certain assumption proves to be invalid then modification will have to be made to how the world is seen. This is basically how we moved from seening world as flat to realizing that it wasn't - certain observations were made that did not fit the flat model.

Because theorems are man-made, it is almost immaterial what the true state of the universe is, we may never know because we are bound by our own data collection, perception and understanding - how can we step outside those boundaries? I am not trying to say that gravity does not exist, but that in our attempts to understand our surroundings we our bound by our own physical limitations.

 

By definition universe IS infinite, it literally means everything you can give a name.
The Cosmos, Space, or the universe as its been termed. Is currently immeasurable. Our sensors are not at this point sensitive enough to detect any curvature in the expanding. If there is an arc one day we should be able to detect it.

If you look the mmap, or other such big picture renderings of the data, you may have noticed it looks a lot like smoke structures you see in highspeed shots of explosions. Due to particle interactions and such, there is never a true void in the center of an explosion. So this is why the Cosmos is not a "smoke ring" with an obvious void in the center.

I believe what we observe, again referencing mmap data, currently more closely resembles an implosion than explosion. With all the matter slowly drifting apart. This still gives all the same temperature and pressure changes as a big bang, so doesn't really alter the math.

I believe this leaves open the possibility for there to of been a Cosmos before, in which case the center is a whole lot farther away than 13.5billion light years. It could also explain the dark-energy phenomena, as we're not being pushed by just one shock-wave.

Just food for thought, I'm not a quantum mathematician or astro-physicist.
I leave you with. What if time is the shockwave?

 

No, infinite is a concept with a separate definition, the universe is something else. The word universe meets the definition you put forth, everything we know of, "The One". Definitions are important, you don't mix words as a convenience (that is what marketers do).

Infinite is without end, which to the best observations simply does not describe the Universe. We can see edges of the universe in the form of the hydrogen fog. The Universe does lend itself to Sagan's concept of numerous though, which is a different concept.

 

And again, since we have never even reached another solar system, and don't know the physics of deep space, how can planetary physics of OUR solar system be applied to the universe? We don't know what the effects of other systems gravity or other phenomena are or light or magnetic radiation.

All just a guess or philosophy.

Voyager is considered a deep space object, for quite some time isn't it?

I haven't sat in every Cadillac on the planet but, but i know the seats are going to be comparable due to the pieces having come from the same factory.

So in this case the Sol system is a Caddy, and Alpha centauri will be an Oldsmobile. The seats still won't be radically different, it's a new factory but the same material supply.

You might run into a bamboo chair, or a milk crate but I wouldn't count on anything but springs and foam showing up..

 

The Universe does lend itself to Sagan's concept of numerous though, which is a different concept.

Can you fix that typo please, Sagan thought lots of stuff.

You say we've seen edges of the universe in fog clouds. I'm pretty sure i'd of heard of that, and we wouldn't be discussing where it is. We would be pointing at it on a rendering going "WOW".

What you describe is just one of the many roiling folds of the Cosmic structure, or I've got my crow fork ready.

Just for clarity it's WMAP not mmap,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

I was really hoping to find that sweet 3d render Nova used, it's a 3d fly around of the observed/mapped universe.

*shrug* Maybe one day we'll have location we can call 0,0,0, and a universal overflow error?

 

It is not a typo, but a quote from one of Sagan's books, to which I referred to in detail in this same thread on an earlier post. Reading is your friend.

 

I was really hoping to find that sweet 3d render Nova used, it's a 3d fly around of the observed/mapped universe.

"seek, and ye shall find"

The Known Universe by AMNH, (2009): http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=17jymDn0W6U or http://vimeo.com/19568852

Millennium Simulation: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/millennium/ (general project page)

 

No, infinite is a concept with a separate definition, the universe is something else. The word universe meets the definition you put forth, everything we know of, "The One". Definitions are important, you don't mix words as a convenience (that is what marketers do).

Infinite is without end, which to the best observations simply does not describe the Universe. We can see edges of the universe in the form of the hydrogen fog. The Universe does lend itself to Sagan's concept of numerous though, which is a different concept.

Not to pick nits, but I would say we are not so much seeing the edges of the universe as we may be seeing the center ( but of course all points are the center ). I mean the center in the sense that we are looking back in time and so the universe was smaller and more point like ( of course in some sense anything finite non zer0 is much bigger than a point ), also hotter, younger, less evolved, and from our point of view much dimmer.

 

I thought science is about questioning things? Religion is about accepting things on faith.

Why of all the people that have posted questions ,doubting the validity of the 'accepted theory' do you guys chose to attack me for voicing my opinion/theory? like it or not, I am just as much a "scientist" as you 'bangers'. I just choose not to worship at the same altar.

....

Doubt is fine, but there is some requirement to have a good understanding of the theory you are doubting and a knowledge of the standard problems with it and the response of the theory to those problems.

 

I guess this paper siting astronomers and astrophysicist that were peer-reviewed won't count either? http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

 

warning - to post in the physics forum, you must be a scientist or play one on the web!

Mature and brilliant all at once!

So, it seems I have now changed my mind. I believe what ever you believe. You are right sir! I'll no longer make any attempt to dissuade you.

 

Just a question,

Is any one familiar with the concept from which the term 'hogwash' was coined?


Just asking.

 

I guess this paper siting astronomers and astrophysicist that were peer-reviewed won't count either? http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

Not sure but: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_journal_of_theoretics


says:


Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > Uncategorized >

What is the journal of theoretics?

Answer:

A pseudoscientific crackpot journal. You would be wise to avoid it.

but who is http://wiki.answers.com to say?

 

Russ!!

Very close. Very, very close. I'm tempted to award the prize.

Hogwash mid-15c., "slops fed to pigs," from Hog (n.) + wash. Extended to "cheap liquor" (1712) then to "inferior writing" (1773).

 

would you accept this:

The word "hogwash" itself, however, comes from a more honorable venue, the barnyard. "Hogwash" in the farming sense is garbage, kitchen waste, or sometimes the leftover refuse of a brewery, used as slop or swill for the feeding of swine. The "wash" in "hogwash" is derived from the noun "wash," which has many senses, including "waste water, discharged after use in washing" (as in rinsing out a pot, for instance), and "hogwash" in the literal feed-the-piggies sense is indeed often largely liquid. "Hogwash" first appeared in English in the barnyard sense around 1440, and by 1712 was being used as a synonym for cheap liquor or any other worthless thing, including bad writing. By the late 1800s, "hogwash" was being used among journalists themselves to describe worthless writing in newspapers, and ever since "hogwash" has been used to mean any sort of intellectually fraudulent argument or specious proclamation.

source: http://www.word-detective.com/042702.html (probably not so credible but seems to agree with the dictionary)